| Display title | Talk:Informed majority coalition criterion |
| Default sort key | Informed majority coalition criterion |
| Page length (in bytes) | 933 |
| Namespace ID | 1 |
| Namespace | Talk |
| Page ID | 3955 |
| Page content language | en - English |
| Page content model | wikitext |
| Indexing by robots | Allowed |
| Number of redirects to this page | 0 |
| Number of subpages of this page | 0 (0 redirects; 0 non-redirects) |
| Edit | Allow all users (infinite) |
| Move | Allow all users (infinite) |
| Delete | Allow all users (infinite) |
| Page creator | Kristomun (talk | contribs) |
| Date of page creation | 19:30, 12 April 2024 |
| Latest editor | Closed Limelike Curves (talk | contribs) |
| Date of latest edit | 17:46, 15 April 2024 |
| Total number of edits | 3 |
| Recent number of edits (within past 180 days) | 3 |
| Recent number of distinct authors | 2 |
Description | Content |
Article description: (description)
This attribute controls the content of the description and og:description elements. | User:Closed Limelike Curves, regarding the clarification request: that (Absolute Condorcet)//X is no more strategically susceptible than X if X meets the InfMC criterion is shown in Durand's paper. That the strategy on election where the methods are both vulnerable may change follows from the incompatibility of Condorcet with LNHarm and LNHelp, and thus that IRV has zero burial incentive while Condorcet//IRV has nonzero. Hence for some elections, (Absolute Condorcet)//IRV must be susceptible to burial whereas IRV is not. Kristomun (talk) 19:30, 12 April 2024 (UTC) |
